Category Archives: International

It’s a popular concensus to suggest that the likes of Trump and UKIP are a danger to us all. Described by some as either far right, right wing or just plain dangerous, the truth is that neither of these two are the real danger facing the left.

In fact we have been facing this particular danger for many years, the only difference is that the focus has changed and we have put the real danger to the back of our minds. We are being distracted and it’s going to come and bite us all in the backside, hard.

The real danger is Neoconservatism, or Neocon for short. Neither Trump nor UKIP fit this billing.

Trump and UKIP share a few qualities and they centre around protectionism. This will manifest in a desire to bring back industries lost to Capitalism (or progress), protect ones own country at the expense perhaps of foreigners, protect jobs and importantly keep out of foreign affairs as far as possible. The ideas often result in high levels of nationalism and that can be viewed by some as a good thing and others as bad depending on your take on things. In contrast protectionists do not usually like to interfere abroad, they tend to be militarily neutral and they have no desire to overthrow governments for whatever reason. To do so is considered expansionism or imperialism. It’s therefore extremely important to distinguish between imperialist nationalism and protectionist nationalism and both UKIP and Trump fall into the latter.

Today all the focus is on both of these political entities with UKIP constantly being labelled rightly or wrongly as racist and Trumps inauguration instigating one of the largest ever nationwide protests in US history and huge protests elsewhere around the world. Billed as perhaps the most dangerous man to ever enter the Whitehouse. In some ways that may well be true especially if your concerns are ones around the environment.

Whilst the world gazes almost hypnotically at the Whitehouse and the rise of right wing parties across Europe, the left is almost entirely taking its eye off the real danger. The Neocons.

It’s not a great leap to suggest that Trump being elected was their plan all along. With the world seemingly turning against Imperialism and Neocons/Oligarchs and their domination under threat, what better way to scare the masses than put someone like Trump into power?

One conspiracy too far? Perhaps, though the end result of Trumps leadership may well result in something equally as powerful to the Neocons. Cementing for many a year to come their unequivocal power and hold, on the electorate, rolling back the fear the people have of them and instead ensuring that the public embraces them.

Consider the image below;

Taken from the Vox.com article it explains how Conservatives are trying to literally turn people away from the likes of Bernie Sanders and Socialism such is their fear of real change. In the article it states;

“Americans needed to be reminded of life under the Soviet Union, arguing that they were insufficiently aware of the dangers of authoritarian states under communism.”

It goes on to say

“The panel repeatedly mentioned lessons from countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union, saying that millennials had to understand that socialism is inseparable from dictatorship”

If that is not enough to convince you that the Neocons are vying to take back control listen to this recent video featuring Hillary Clinton speaking for the DNC.

Here she takes credit for the protests against Trump and claims that the Democrats produced the most “radical” set of policies in “history” during the presidential campaign. If you believe any of that then you’re bound to be one of the ones voting for the Neocons at the next election. Heck! She even used the phrase “resistance and persistence” . This is the way it will go between now and whenever the next election is. The Neocons will be brilliantly executing their plans to convince you that Neoconservatism is ‘normal’. Chances are it will work too because the left have taken their eye off the ball. The threat is not Trump, it’s still the imperialist, expansionist neoconservatives.

They will return to power and when they do they will have a vice like grip on the electorate like never before because, they will say, ‘we never want another Trump in power again’ and with the Conservative youth wings of politics promoting Socialism as ‘bad’ like ‘Communist’ Russia and Venezuela, what chances that people will take another gamble after Trump?

Meanwhile the likes of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Bernie Sanders in the US continue to try to fight the establishment tide within the Labour Party and Democratic Party respectively.

When will the real left learn? To really make it work you have to break the mould. Stop trying to swing established Neocon parties to your way of thinking. Develop your own party, swell the ranks and turn the election into a genuine three horse race. The establishment clearly won’t allow you to win using their resources. Sure, it won’t be easy in a new party but at least you’ll get the right candidate and you will live and die by your policies and hard work and not at the hands of a secretive, bias DNC or in the case of Labour in the UK, the PLP.

Perhaps the single biggest stumbling block though is the split running right through the Left at the moment on both sides of the Atlantic between the traditional working class left and the New modern left. I am in no doubt that many working class left, voted for Trump, as are many here in the UK voting for UKIP.

The new modern left can’t understand this and having never likely been involved in old industries where workers rights and jobs was what it was all about, which includes curtailing migration when it needs to be done, the bridge between the two is hard to gap.

The new modern left does include what many consider the far-left which entails Open borders and non nuclear policies but getting a traditional working class man to agree with you on those points I am thinking is going to be a tough job.

As few left wing parties subscribe to this thought process the traditional left are turning to more right wing parties that offer protectionism.

Unless these issues can be sorted out amongst the left then it will be hard to get a leader they want. Let alone the fact that right now the left are not even focusing on the right threat. The Neocons. It’s time the left opened their eyes to what lies ahead.

5 Russian officials in recent months have died, all in various circumstances. A sixth was believed to have been killed in Yemen but Russia has denied the death. Is this purely coincidence?

On 19th December 2016 the Russian ambassador to Ankara, Turkey, Andrei Karlov was assassinated, shot by a Turkish police officer whilst at an art exhibition.

Just hours later on 20th December Petr Polshikov reportedly a senior figure in the Latin American department of the Russian foreign ministry was assassinated at his Moscow home. He was killed from a bullet to the head.

On 9th January 2017 the head of the consular section of the Russian embassy in Greece, Andrey Malanin, was found dead in his apartment. The verdict was natural causes.

Days later on the 14th January Vladimir Dedushkin was reportedly shot and killed at the Russian embassy in Sanaa, Yemen according to Saudi media. However Russia has denied the killing and insists he is alive and well although at the time of writing UKI Left has been unable to find any articles proving Dedushkin is alive.

On 26th January Alexander Kadakin, Russian ambassador to India, New Delhi, died after an alleged brief illness.

The latest death to date was yesterday on 20th February. Russian ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin was found dead in the office of the deputy Russian UN ambassador in New York, USA. At the time of writing there was no official cause of death provided but it has been reported that Churkin had a possible heart condition.

Also of recent interest was the death of Belgium auditor general to NATO, Yves Chendelon. He was found in his car in Andenne, Belgium 60 miles away from his home in Lens. He had been shot dead. Official reports say it was a suicide but the family dispute this due to several anomalies surrounding the incident. Chendelons role was partly to investigate terror groups. He was found dead on December 16th 2016, three days before the assassination of Karlov in Turkey.

Prior to the slaying in Turkey the last confirmed assassination of a Russian diplomat was in 1985 during the Lebanese hostage crisis. Four were taken hostage and eventually one was shot dead, Arkady Katkov.

Whilst only two of the forementioned Russian deaths were officially assassinations, suspicion surrounds the others, even if only for the number of Russian diplomats being found dead in just the last three months.

Like this:

One of the main questions on last night’s BBC Question Time was, as expected, around Donald Trump’s “immigration ban” and wether the Queen should revoke the invitation to him for a State visit.

Nick Hewer, presenter of Countdown and previous right hand man to Alan Sugar on the BBC’s ‘The Apprentice‘, went on a tirade about Trump’s policy indicating that the policy on Immigration will help galvanise terrorists against America.

He could not have got it more wrong despite quoting a man who is an “authority” on the subject. He said;

“I don’t know how many people here have read Patrick Cockburn’s piece, a great journalist, who is recognised as being an authority on all this and said that “Trump has turned himself into the greatest recruiting sergeant for ISIL, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra” because, what he has done with that long winded signature of his is turn every Muslim in the world and questioned where they stand in the eyes of one of the greatest nations in the world and they think less of the States now and that inexorably leads to recruits joining (ISIS) rather than..fighting ISIS”

Patrick Cockburn is a one time Middle East correspondent for The Independent and a one time correspondent for Moscow and Washington and more recently a book writer on modern Iraq. He has also won several journalistic awards.

It’s puzzling then how such a statement can come from someone apparently so informed. Not only this but Hewer is clearly someone in bias-awe of the US.

Perhaps Cockburn has mindlessly forgotten that US foreign policy has seen the US overthrow several foreign leaders over the years of predominantly Muslim countries including Iraq and Libya, to name just two, both of which have led directly to the complete destabilisation of the entire Middle East which ultimately has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims.

Perhaps he has forgotten that the US has illegaly targeted people in foreign nations using drones such as in Pakistan, or maybe he has forgotten that the US more recently decided to fight ISIS using other less evil Jihadist groups, through a proxy war in Syria, supplying them arms and providing them intelligence. Then gave up on them by admitting ‘defeat‘, as they see it, by Russia resulting in the defeat of the Jihadist rebels in Aleppo.

What do you think all of that does for Anti West sentiment? But of course, Donald Trump’s temporaryblock on people from somehigh riskMuslimcountries is seen by Cockburn as the greatest threat to world peace. Clearly Hewer agrees. This couldn’t be further from the truth but it is popular to be seen to condemn Trump regardless of the facts.

This blog does not support Trump at all, but we also call out hyperbole when we see it, regardless who the hyperbole is against.

There is though one more point to make around Hewer’s statement. The second half of his statement clearly implies, wether he meant it or not, that every Muslim is now capable of turning to terrorism because of Trumps policy. What on earth does that say for Muslims?

We like to think that most right minded, sensible Muslims will respond in the right way, we don’t think that all Muslims will now consider terrorism as a response to a temporary block on travel. If you think that, it says more about your opinion of Muslims than anything.

We think they will respond the way the previous speaker to Hewer did. An Iraqi Kurd in the audience who stated that it’s ‘up to the US what policy they introduce’ but politely pointed out that innocent people would be caught up in the new restrictions.

That’s about the only response that should be given in the grand scheme of things, and it’s the only response we should expect.

The real issues regarding US policy are coming down the track and some of those policies will lead to greater problems for the wider global Muslim community, and when that time comes we should not bury our heads like we have done for at least the last 20 years.

Like this:

Back in early 2016 a story broke that made headline news, years earlier it had been dismissed as a conspiracy theory by some. This year the cards are falling into place as Donald Trump the climate sceptic (we’re being generous with that description) begins to wage war against eco activists in favour of big business and the oil corporations. You already know that Donald Trump is business hungry and was always likely to forego climate issues in favour of the energy firms but what you might not realise is how deep the conspiracy may actually be about to go.

Posing the question…Nope. Just a conspiracy.Not true.. what would have been the point?

THENin 2016The Guardian broke a story around documents that had been found indicating that ExxonMobil’s forerunner had not only purchased the patents of environmentally friendly advances in technologies but had systematically withheld the research into these technologies from governments. This was going back as far as the 1940’s. Back then governments were lobbied, as they are now, by the large oil companies and as a result the findings of advances in technology were kept from competing industries such as vehicle manufacturers. The technology existed even back then to produce electric vehicles buy the oil companies were clearly afraid that the advances would put their profits at risk. The oil firm even knew of harmful C02 gases and the impact they were having on the atmosphere but failed to make their findings public, again fearing a hit on their profits. The report says that technology was even being researched into weather manipulation, perhaps giving rise to theories such as geo engineering and HAARP.

The American Petroleum Institute, the main oil lobby, opposed government funding of research into electric cars and low emissions vehicles, telling Congress in 1967: “We take exception to the basic assumption that clean air can be achieved only by finding an alternative to the internal combustion engine.” – The Guardian

ExxonMobil funded a disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting scientists and blocking government efforts to fight climate change for 50 years. Only in 2008 did they “disavow” climate denial.

“What we saw was an array of patent technologies that demonstrated that these companies had the technologies they needed and could have commercialised to help address the problem of C02 pollution,” said Carroll Muffett, president of the Ciel (The organisation that released the files).

“They then turned to Congress and said you don’t need to invest in electrical vehicle research because the research is ongoing and it’s robust”

A year on from the release of that trove of documents and Donald Trump has within the last few days chosen Rex Tillerson as the new Secretary of State. Rex Tillerson was until the last few days the Chief Executive of ExxonMobil. The role of secretary of state is one of the most high powered roles in the USA as the chief foreign policy advisor.

What’s even more important to note is the connection between Donald Trump’s Pro Putin stance and Rex Tillerson’s past. Tillerson and Putin worked together to pursue energy and drilling deals whilst Russia was subject to US sanctions. Tillerson later received an award from Moscow.

It’s ok though, Tillerson has signed a deal meaning he cannot invest in ExxonMobil whilst in office and cannot work in the industry for 10 years. There is definitely no way around that and no way whatsoever that other deals will be done behind the scenes.

‘…the cold weather (it was January) was evidence that there was no climate change’ – Washington Post

Not to mention his more recent comments that have been well publicised in the press.

In short this is the situation we find ourselves in;

•Donald Trump has been, and arguably still is, a climate change denier.

•Donald Trump has openly stated he wishes to work with, and closely to, Russia (we make no comment here on the principle of working alongside Russia).

•Donald Trump has authorised the continuation of the Dakota pipeline.

•Donald Trump has just hired Rex Tillerson, a Chief executive of ExxonMobil.

•Rex Tillerson worked with Russia on oil deals when the US government had sanctions against them

•ExxonMobil are under scrutiny for historic cover ups of technology that could have halved Co2 emissions and also covering up the effects of C02 on the climate.

Finally (this warrants a paragraph on its own), in October 2016 it was revealed that Donald Trump had received huge donations into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for his presidential campaign from one Kelcy Warren, CEO of Energy Transfer Partners the firm behind the construction of the Dakota access pipeline.

They used to think that the idea of oil firms covering up patent squatting and covering up the proof of the effects on the climate from C02 emissions was just a conspiracy. The truth is that the conspiracy is no longer such and instead the truth is now burying itself deep within the White House.

Trump hates the media right now. He slates them at any given opportunity and oddly perhaps this is where the hypocrisy and a clear split in the left of politics is evident and it’s a clear simulation of what has happened with Brexit in the UK.

For many a year the left has seemingly been unified across the board with social justice, the fight against the elite and 1% and the campaign against mainstream media in favour or independent or alternative media being the order of the day.

Yet when push has come to shove the left has split in two causing perhaps untold and permanent damage to the foregoing unity.

When Brexit was on the menu many on the left decided to back remain in the EU for mainly two reasons. One reason was because Jeremy Corbyn said to and the second reason being that some genuinely felt that staying in the EU protected rights and jobs in the UK along with environmental protections.

On the other side the traditional working class, often seen as the traditional left, voted to leave the EU based in large part on concerns over jobs and this then manifested in concerns over immigration but backing these large numbers up was another large chunk of the left, known during the EU vote as Lexiters (Left Exit), they believed that immigration had little to do with the issues and instead focused their concerns on what the left had usually been united on, the fall of the 1% and the attack on the elite. They also believed that by leaving the EU it would stop foreign workers being paid below the national UK minimum wage and also in turn protect jobs in the UK. By leaving the EU it would help curtail at least the European super state forming and make it harder for the elite and 1% to operate. With the loss of pan European finance legislations it would indeed make life much harder for the banks and corporations.

The difference between Lexit voters and the pro-EU left was principal. Lexit voters would vote against what they had always campaigned against even if it meant harder times for those in the UK (and there has so far been little evidence of that) whereas Pro-EU left voters voted on the fear that a Tory government would slash and burn workers rights and become entirely anti-immigration even if it meant backing the elite and 1%…something they too had campaigned for over the years. What they perhaps failed to see was the long term solution that a Tory government would not always be in power and that even Jeremy Corbyn spoke of a different Europe based on Socialist values if the UK came out of the current EU and a Left government came to power.

Regardless of all that though, it meant the left had split and a new dividing line had formed.

What then is the link between this and Trump? Principle.

The left has for a long time campaigned against the mainstream media as corrupt and bias with around 6 corporations in control of much of the world’s mainstream media. The tycoon ‘Murdoch’ perhaps being the most hated figure within the media spectrum.

Now though the same split as Brexit is appearing around Trump’s dealing with the media. Much of the left is rounding on Trump for not taking questions from the media, shutting down the conversation and ultimately berating the media and sometimes even insulting it. This section of the left is demanding that he deal with the media properly, like Obama did and citing Trump’s attitude as evidence of his Incompetence and unprofessionalism.

Yet those on the other side of the left divide recognise that Trump’s behaviour toward the media is exactly what the left has in some ways been campaigning for. To put the media in its place, to reject it. To call it out for what they often are, hyperbolic liars incapable of true journalism.

Perhaps in some ways the stand off between Trump and the media will galvanise journalists to finally do some real investigative journalism but when it comes to principle, the left has split irrevocably on a number of issues including Brexit and Trump.

Some may argue that those on the left that support Trump’s stance with the media and support Brexit are also in turn supporting the right. However when it comes to principle you are not meant to change your views based on what others are doing or want. You stick to them, regardless. Only if something truly horrifying is happening should you consider altering your values and so far, with just a few days under his belt and just a few months after the Brexit vote, neither Trump nor Brexit have come close to be truly horrifying… yet. What it does show is that some on the left are so focused on their label as social justice protectors that anything else pails and such a one track mind can be as dangerous as a right wing supporter also with a one track mind. It takes little intelligence and little forethought to stand for something without having given it some long term analysis.

I can’t let the article finish without mentioning the violence and destruction that some on the left are committing. The only violence or destruction that ever need be committed is when it matters and only then against the actual target of the anger, that being, usually, government or corporate property or persons. Targeting your own communities or fellow citizens is most often cowardly and ineffectual and very stupid.

This was a year of political chaos for many people around the world. From the UK Brexit vote to Donald Trump’s victory in the USA, from the destruction of parts of Syria to the destruction of Yemen, from the Austrian near far right vote to South Korea’s demonstrations to oust their corrupt leadership and all of that is really just the tip of the iceburg, but what a tip it is. The ramifications from many of these situations will continue long into 2017.

All of these things though have something in common and that is their truth value. A truth that people have had enough and that people were willing to rock the boat of stability in order to effect a change. Love it or loath it, these situations cast a light on public sentiment and not all of it is good. Far from the belief of the left that things must change for the better and calling on the public to heed that message, it’s been far easier for the public to express their anger in the most obvious of human traits and that isn’t good either.

It does represent the truth. That people are fed up with things and who can blame them after a decade of austerity, rising costs and stagnating wages but what does it mean for 2017 and beyond?

It would be easy to say “more of the same” and perhaps the trend may continue in some respects, but within choas, even if it is of the people’s own making and volition, comes the desire for stability and safety and that may actually translate into people reflecting on a turbulent political year and voting for stability instead and if that happens we can expect to at least see Donald Trump towing the well trodden path so many have taken before him rather than branching out into a cauldron of Trump-Politics, Theresa May continuing to enjoy high polling in the UK rather than Corbyn breaking the mould, Italy, France and Germany voting for what they know best of all and the Middle East finding an unusually quiet year ahead and come December 31st 2017, we may just return to what we do best.. burying our heads in the political sand and avoiding the notion that politics is corrupt.

Like this:

​Bernie Sanders, the one time 2016 Democrat nominee had huge support and almost considered standing as a third party or more specifically an independent candidate. That was considered an option at very short notice. His campaign was already in full swing.

Sanders almost did it. Defying the odds against the establishment he was indeed the left wing anti establishment candidate even though he ran on a Democrat ticket having had concerns about lack of exposure as an independent candidate. It’s worth considering then what he could have achieved with perhaps a few years lead time, building his movement up and gaining grass roots traction. Campaigns do not have to be started just a year prior to an election as we all know.

With Trump now having won the day in the US election it will surely open the flood gates of discussion around democracy and the political system in the USA. So many more people have been invigorated and are aware of anti establishment candidates and third party candidates, it’s almost like someone let the cat out of the bag. Psssttt… you don’t have to limit your vote to the establishment candidates and neither Trump nor Sanders were establishment candidates as we know it. They may have ran on establishment party tickets but both were up against it from the true establishment.

The modern day Labour Party here in the UK began many years ago as a people’s movement and soon became the people’s champion introducing the NHS and social welfare. All political parties have to start somewhere and unless we break the mould of two party systems then we will unlikely escape the clutches of the status quo.

Many people have said that if Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, was ousted now then they would follow him if he started his own party or joined a smaller one. That would instantly become a very large party over night.
If activists across the USA can harness the legacy now left by the Bernie Sanders campaign over the next 4 to 8 years then there is no reason they can’t build a movement that either leads a third party candidate like Jill Stein of the Greens to seriously challenge the Democrats and Republicans or indeed have a populist left wing candidate standing as an independent or forming their own party. It would fit well with the coming debates around a political shift in the country.

Jill Stein, Leader of the Green Party

Left wing Americans now need to decide on the path forward. Do nothing and expect more of the same in the future or decide collectively on the path of all left wing progressives. Jill Stein or even a new political party or movement and that will require a people’s champion of the highest order.